Comments: The notes are very clear and generally
preceded by the letter 'D'.

2.

Bèze intended to edit Tertullian. He corresponded
with Pierre Pithou, who sent him a codex of s.XI, which is perhaps
the Divionensis. This information comes from Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze,
edited by H. Aubert, publ. by A. Dufour and B. Nicollier, vol. XIII (1572),
Geneva 1988, no. 885, p.23 n.4. (All details from
Chapot, none checked).4

3.

Pierre Pithou (1539-15961) himself wrote the readings from this MS into a
copy of the Gelenius edition (1550) which he possessed4.

The relationship of D to other members of the family was
determined by J.-C. Fredouille1, who showed that it
belonged to the alpha-branch of the family, and was a descendant of the
Montepessulanus (M). From the variants in the text of Adversus
Valentinianos, he was unable to determine exactly whether it was a direct
copy of M, or via the lost intermediary from which the s.XV Florence MS VI.9 (N)
was made. However F.Chapot while compiling the variants of Adversus
Hermogenem was able to show that it was in fact copied directly from M.4

The readings given vary, not least because the text against
which the collations were made varies. There are 139 common readings, of
which a dozen vary. The Beza and Pithou readings have 176 lectiones in
common, as they are based on two closely related editions. The readings
given by Salmasius are more isolated, because the Pamelius text is rather
different to the others. Rigaltius gives us three readings found in none
of the collations.4